Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #596819 > unrolled thread

New papers: SR versus ...

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  New papers: SR versus ... "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2022-12-04 11:16 -0800
    Re: New papers: SR versus ... Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2022-12-04 13:09 -0800
      Re: New papers: SR versus ... "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2022-12-05 07:33 -0800
        Re: New papers: SR versus ... Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2022-12-05 12:06 -0800
          Re: New papers: SR versus ... "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2022-12-05 18:20 -0800
            Re: New papers: SR versus ... "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-05 18:33 -0800
            Re: New papers: SR versus ... Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2022-12-05 18:54 -0800
              Re: New papers: SR versus ... "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 18:15 -0800
                Re: New papers: SR versus ... Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 20:03 -0800
                  Re: New papers: SR versus ... "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 18:13 -0800
                    Re: New papers: SR versus ... Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-12-12 23:50 -0600
                  Re: New papers: SR versus ... "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 18:14 -0800
                  Re: New papers: SR versus ... "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 18:17 -0800
                  Re: New papers: SR versus ... "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 18:21 -0800
                  Re: New papers: SR versus ... "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 18:23 -0800
                  Re: New papers: SR versus ... "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 18:24 -0800
                  Re: New papers: SR versus ... "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 18:52 -0800
                    Re: New papers: SR versus ... Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 20:49 -0800
                      Re: New papers: SR versus ... Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-12-12 23:50 -0600
                        Re: New papers: SR versus ... Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 22:12 -0800
                          Re: New papers: SR versus ... Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 04:17 -0800
                        Re: New papers: SR versus ... Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 03:41 -0800
                        Re: New papers: SR versus ... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-14 08:22 +0100
                Re: New papers: SR versus ... beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 09:33 -0800
                  Re: New papers: SR versus ... Fabio Brambilla <oaab@llbaboaa.am> - 2022-12-14 17:53 +0000
                    Re: New papers: SR versus ... whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-14 13:44 -0600
    Re: New papers: SR versus ... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-17 08:07 +0100
      Re: New papers: SR versus ... beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 05:54 -0800
        Re: New papers: SR versus ... whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-19 14:03 -0600
          Re: New papers: SR versus ... Vitaliy Bazzoli <zvt@viavzl.oi> - 2022-12-19 22:05 +0000
            Re: New papers: SR versus ... whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-19 16:09 -0600
              Re: New papers: SR versus ... Vitaliy Bazzoli <zvt@viavzl.oi> - 2022-12-19 22:21 +0000
                Re: New papers: SR versus ... whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-19 17:37 -0600
                  Re: New papers: SR versus ... Vitaliy Bazzoli <zvt@viavzl.oi> - 2022-12-20 00:00 +0000
                    Re: New papers: SR versus ... Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 19:53 -0800
                    Re: New papers: SR versus ... whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-19 23:14 -0600
          Re: New papers: SR versus ... RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-20 12:01 -0800
            Re: New papers: SR versus ... whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-20 14:34 -0600
            Re: New papers: SR versus ... beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 07:35 -0800
        Re: New papers: SR versus ... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-20 07:39 +0100
          Re: New papers: SR versus ... beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 03:24 -0800
            Re: New papers: SR versus ... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-21 09:43 +0100
              Re: New papers: SR versus ... beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 06:55 -0800
                Re: New papers: SR versus ... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-24 10:05 +0100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#597430

On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 07:12:38 UTC+1, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 9:50:57 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote: 
> > > General relativity does not say that the laws of physics take the 
> > > same form in terms of rotating or accelerating coordinate systems as 
> > > they do in terms of local standard inertial coordinate systems. 
> > > Indeed they do not. 
> > 
> > This is wrong.
> Nope. Had you read on to the very next sentence you would have discovered that: "Using the tensor formalism we can write the field equations of general relativity in a very simple covariant form, and this formalism efficiently encodes all the acceleration terms and handles them automatically, to allow very efficient and simple-looking expressions


It's YOU saying they're very efficient. And that's because 
you have no clue about - what efficiency is. 
It's normal, of course, the communist said the same,
that their absurds are very efficient.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597427

On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 06:50:57 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 12/12/22 10:49 PM, Trevor Lange wrote: 
> > General relativity does not say that the laws of physics take the 
> > same form in terms of rotating or accelerating coordinate systems as 
> > they do in terms of local standard inertial coordinate systems. 
> > Indeed they do not.
> This is wrong. General Relativity, and indeed all of modern physics, 
> state that the laws of physics are independent of coordinates. This is 
> fundamental -- nature CLEARLY uses no coordinates, so no 
> coordinate-dependent quantity can accurately model any natural phenomenon. 

With the same "logic" we can easily prove, that we can accurtely 
describe any natural phenomenon without tesors. Or numbers. Or 
even without letters. Tom, you know nothing about models.
It's just some exotic, uncomprehendable pseudophilosophy
for you. Face it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597485

Am 13.12.2022 um 06:50 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 12/12/22 10:49 PM, Trevor Lange wrote:
>> General relativity does not say that the laws of physics take the same
>> form in terms of rotating or accelerating coordinate systems as they
>> do in terms of local standard inertial coordinate systems. Indeed they
>> do not.
>
> This is wrong. General Relativity, and indeed all of modern physics,
> state that the laws of physics are independent of coordinates. This is
> fundamental -- nature CLEARLY uses no coordinates, so no
> coordinate-dependent quantity can accurately model any natural phenomenon.


Why then did Einstein wrote so extensively about the influence of moving 
coordinate systems in SRT?

> You are confusing the laws of physics, which in GR are tensor equations,
> with projections of those equations onto various coordinate systems.

No, laws of nature are never equations!

You may eventually find equations, that are a good representation of 
such laws, but that wouldn't make these laws an equation.

> Certainly when the tensors are projected onto locally-inertial
> coordinates the results are quite different from projections onto
> accelerated or rotating coordinates. But the underlying laws are
> unaffected, because they are independent of coordinates.


They are also independent of the used mathematical constructs.

I personally don't like tensors.

Instead I try to promote a system for spacetime physics, which uses 
complex four vectors and no tensors.

..

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597510

Il giorno giovedì 8 dicembre 2022 alle 03:16:00 UTC+1 erkd...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 2:54:52 AM UTC, Trevor Lange wrote:
> > On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 6:20:57 PM UTC-8, Eric Baird wrote: 
> > > > You are quite explicitly proposing the denial/rejection of local Lorentz invariance. 
> > > I'm trying very hard in /this/ thread here not to "propose" //anything//... 
> > Well, you failed, because you began the thread by explicitly denying and rejecting local Lorentz invariance,
> The claim made in those papers, is simple. 
> It is that 
> (a) The equations and relationships of SR do not take into account gravitomagnetism. You'll agree with this, because, obviously, SR doesn't claim to deal with gravity. 
> (b) The equations and relationships of SR, //derived// using the assumption of fixed flat spacetime regardless of the relative speed of bodies, //force// and //impose// the absence of velocity-dependent curvature when they are applied. You probably have to agree with this too, because textbooks carry the proof, that if we start by applying SR for inertial physics, we can prove that a forcibly-accelerated mass cannot possibly warp spacetime. What the mass experiences as apparent curvature is instead the result of it travelling along a curved path in flat spacetime. 
> (c) Now switch to Einstein's 1921 Princeton lectures. Einstein points out that it is a consequence of the relativity of acceleration that a forcibly accelerated mass MUST warp spacetime 
> Einstein (1921):::: 
> :::: " A body must experience an accelerating force when neighbouring masses are accelerated, and, in fact, the force must be in the same direction as that acceleration." 
> :::: " ... these effects ... are actually present according to our theory ... " 
> :::: " There is an inductive action of accelerated masses, of the same sign, on the test body. " 
> 
> So, on the one hand, the relativity of acceleration requires that all forcibly-accelerated matter must be associated with a gravitomagnetic dragging effect on nearby matter and light, and an intrinsic curvature of the metric due to the relative acceleration ... 
> ... And on the other hand this form of distortion, provably //cannot happen//, if the motion of masses, in effectively straight lines, at effectively constant velocities, is correctly described by the equations of special relativity. 
> 
> So if the principle of relativity of acceleration is correct, then the equations of motion (most obviously the Doppler relationships) cannot be those of special relativity. 
> OTOH, if we want a theory that //does// use the SR Doppler equations, it cannot comply with the principle of relativity of acceleration, and cannot conform to the general principle of relativity. 
> 
> Game over. 
> 
> ==== 
> Since the strength of gravitomagnetic effects in a model shows up in the strength of the deviation from SR's flat-spacetime Doppler relationships, and since a theory has to apply //precisely the same// Doppler relationship to all moving bodies regardless of their composition and density, a theory /has/ to apply precisely the same gravitomagnetic deviation (or //lack// of gravitomagnetic deviation) everywhere. We are not allowed to have a universe in which weak-gravity inertial physics obeys SR and strong-gravity physics obeys something else, with a smooth transition. 
> Transitions are forbidden, we either have a UNIVERSAL gravitomagnetic deviation from the SR equations to allow the GPoR, , which then has to apply everywhere, which means that SR applies //nowhere//, or we have a UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT with the SR equations, which means that SR applies everywhere, but the general principle of relaitvity, and the Mach-Einstein idea that we could apply the relaitvity principle to all forms of relative motion, is wrong. 
> 
> So you have two main choices: 
> CHOICE 1: If you want to continue treating the SR equations as sacrosanct, then you have to give up forever the idea that the relativity principle applies to acceleration. Since gravitomagnetism is also required for the relativity of rotation and for relativistic gravitation, you have to give those up, too. Oh, and you also lose the principle of equivalence of inertia and gravitation. 
> CHOICE 2: If you want a theory that operates according to the Mach-Einstein idea that all motion is relative, then you //need// gravitomagnetism, and so you //need// to ditch the SR relationships in favour of a replacement set that's more gravitomagnetically compatible. 
> 
> What you are NOT allowed to do is pretend that some theory out there includes both geometrically incompatible sets of behaviour, in a single theory. That's just delusional. Einstein had the excuse that it was 1915/1916, the subject was still comparatively fresh, and nobody //really// knew what the rules were. It's now 2022, and we have no such excuse. 
> 
> Einstein, 1919: :::::: 
> :::::: " ... the theory of relativity resembles a building consisting of two 
> separate stories, the special theory and the general theory. The special theory, on which the 
> general theory rests, applies to all physical phenomena with the exception of gravitation; the 
> general theory provides the law of gravitation and its relations to the other forces of nature. " 
> 
> :::::: " If it is necessary for the purpose of 
> describing nature, to make use of a coordinate system arbitrarily introduced by us, then the 
> choice of its state of motion ought to be subject to no restriction; the laws ought to be entirely 
> independent of this choice (general principle of relativity). 
> 
> :::::: " The chief attraction of the theory lies in its logical completeness. If a single one of the 
> conclusions drawn from it proves wrong, it must be given up; to modify it without destroying the 
> whole structure seems to be impossible. " 
> 
> So basically, Einstein's attempt at a general theory failed. He tried to build his general theory on an SR foundation, and the SR relationships turn out to be incompatible with the idea that acceleration and rotation are purely relative. Relative acceleration and rotation require gravitomagnetism, and the possibility of gravitomagnetism is ruled out by the flat relationships of SR physics. 
> 
> 
> 
> Trevor Lange wrote>
> > and I pointed out that your beliefs are thereby conclusively falsified empirically.
> If we live in a rational universe that allows itself to be described with classical geometry, then the //laws of geometry// cannot be overridden by empirical evidence. Something in your worldview must be wrong. 
> //My// beliefs (whatever they may well be) are irrelevant to arguments based on hard geometry. 
> This is why we place so much trust in geometry -- it is because the answers provided by geometry are independent of the belief system of the operator. 
> 
> GEOMETRY says that Einstein's general theory does not, and geometrically CANNOT achieve its original design criteria. Einstein's vision of a general theory based on an SR-relationships foundation is geometrically impossible to implement. My character, beliefs, morals, and personality are all irrelevant to questions of fundamental geometry. In this situation I am merely the messenger. 
> 
> Trevor Lange wrote> 
> > And now, to avoid facing this complete falsification of your beliefs, ... 
> 
> I think a psychologist would refer to this as defensive projection. The failure of Einstein's general theory doesn't overturn any of //my// beliefs, does it? It's not //my// theory that's just been shown to be a car wreck. 
> 
> Trevor Lange wrote>
> > you try to retreat into saying "Oh, I'm not proposing anything... ". Well, okay, if you now are not proposing anything, then you really have nothing to say, nothing that you are prepared to stand behind.
> Trevor, let's play Devil's Advocate -- let's suppose that what you have just written is correct, and that I have no credible replacement theory, nothing meaningful to contribute, and a poor moral character that leads me to shy away from standing by my personal convictions. 
> 
> In that hypothetical, YOU ARE STILL SCREWED. 
> Because your theory of choice is //still// geometrically invalidated, and you still can't work out how it happened. 
> Which means that you no longer know which parts of your own belief system to trust, and how far. 
> You will be experiencing a certain degree of cognitive dissonance, that makes it difficult to think. 
> 
> I don't ==have== to help you with this. I don't =have= to explain where the standard definitions were skewed artificially to force the appearance of SR, I don't =have= to point out the gaps in the derivations, the logical short-circuits, or the assumed but unquestioned linguistic equivalences. I don't =have= to identify the faulty metaphysics, the bad philosophical leaps, or the poor analysis. 
> 
> A theory based on SR relationships //cannot// incorporate gravitomagnetism, while a theory applying the relativity principle universally //must// incorporate gravitomagnetism. 
> That's enough to kill Einstein's attempted implementation of universal relativity stone dead. The argument is pretty self-contained. 
> 
> This is not an A/B choice between me and Albert. Albert is already provably wrong no matter what. 
> 
> Trevor Lange wrote>
> > No, general relativity is explicitly locally Lorentz invariant, just as in ordinary spatial geometry every Riemannian manifold is locally Euclidean invariant. Of course, the manifold of general relativity is not globally Lorentz invariant -- that goes without saying -- but it is manifestly locally Lorentz invariant. This is very elementary.
> In that case, Trevor, you have a real problem on your hands. Because the system is nevertheless pathological, and you can't work out why, or where the problem is. 
> 
> This is a characteristic of pathological systems: They can be almost impossible to "think your way out" of them from the inside, because once you have =internalised= a pathological set of rules, the pathology then resides within your own head. The victim can become like an ant running around a Moebius strip, trying to claim that the surface is obviously orientable, because every part of it is orientable. 
> 
> In order to help a victim understand and deal with the pathology, one has to first confront them with an unavoidable proof that their system breaks. Rather than query every little thing they believe in, one point at a time (which is like chasing the ant around the Moebius strip), one says, "Okay, lets assume for the sake of argument that EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE IN IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT". Rather than querying the idea that SR proves that accelerated masses don't distort spacetime, we'll accept it, and rather than querying whether Einstein's general theory really does conform to the relativities of acceleration and rotation, and the equivalence of inertia and gravity, well accept those too. We'll then show that we can prove mutually impossible outcomes (both "A" and "NOT-A"). 
> 
> This is "proof by contradiction". Because one is agreeing with everything the person tells you, the person can't blame any final inconsistencies back on you. One don't even have to be able to point out where their system went wrong, you only have to show that the results are contradictory. 
> 
> Trevor Lange wrote>
> > No, you're completely confused.
> No, I'm just enjoying sitting back and watching your brain spin. 
> 
> Trevor Lange wrote>
> >The spacetime manifold of general relativity is explicitly locally Lorentz invariant, as you can see by the fact that the general line element ds^2 = g_mn dx^m dx^n (summation implied) can be transformed to the Minkowski line element in terms of a suitable coordinate system at any given event. This is precisely the same as the fact that in ordinary spatial geometry the line element ds^2 = g_mn dx^m dx^n can be transformed to the Euclidean line element in terms of a suitable coordinate system at any given point.
> Okay. Let's suppose that you are right: 
> How, then, in that context, do you explain that SR relationships allow us to prove that gravitomagnetic curvature is universally //absent//, while the general application of the relativity principle (and/or relativistic gravitation) requires that gravitomagnetism must be universally //present//? This is a fundamental disagreement about physical outcomes. It shows that the system is logically and geometrically inconsistent with the properties claimed for it. i.e. the thing doesn't work as advertised. 
> 
> I only have to demonstrate that there is a conflict. 
> I don't have to provide an explanation to your satisfaction of //why// it arises, I only have to show you that it //does//. 
> 
> EB > >
> > > We are only allowed one set of universal Doppler relationships per theory...
> TREVOR> 
> > General relativity handles the Doppler effect just fine, and of course at any event the frequencies and aberration angles of a given wave in terms of two relatively moving systems of local inertial coordinates at that event are given by the equations of special relativity, and this is entirely consistent with every possible prior history of that wave (since it depends only on the local attributes of the wave, not its history). 
> 
> ... Yes, of course ... so we can PROVE that all moving objects must obey the same Doppler equations, irrespective of whether they are considered "strong-gravity" or "weak-gravity". 
> 
> Snag is, the //form// of those (universal) Doppler equations also tells us the strength of gravitomagnetism (which, in the case of the SR Doppler relationships, is "zero"). 
> Combined with the universality of the Doppler equations, SR Doppler requires gravitomagnetism to be ==universally== absent, while implementing the principle of relativity for gravitational and rotating and accelerating bodies requires it to universally ==present=, and both required conditions can't be satisfied in the same universe, because that would require more than one Doppler relationship. 
> We have to either lose special relativity to preserve gravitomagnetism, or lose gravitomagnetism to preserve special relativity. 
> Einstein claimed that his theory supported both. That's simply not possible. 
> 
> Geometrically, we are only allowed one, at most.
> >This is all very elementary.
> Elementary ... and yet contradictory! <grins> 
> You see, the great thing about pathological systems of logic is //not// that they don't let you prove things -- if that was the case, we'd quickly get frustrated with them and switch to something else. 
> 
> What makes pathological systems so insanely seductive is that they let us prove //too much//. If the operator believes in proposition "A", then the system will let them prove it, and they'll then feel entitled to say that "NOT-A" is proven to be wrong, and that every fool knows that A is right and NOT-A is wrong. But their colleague in the next office who was taught physics slightly differently, may believe that NOT-A is fundamental. The same system will then agree that NOT-A is provably true, and let them prove that A is wrong. 
> Within a pathological system the operator is lulled into a sort of dream-state, where everything they believe in, the system will reassure them is true, and will let them prove it. Because those fundamental convictions become "provable", the operator gets a giddy feeling of omnipotence, as if they are taking a "smart drug", and they develop strong feelings of loyalty to the theory that let them achieve such great things with such certainty. They can become quite defensive if the theory is questioned. 
> 
> This is why it is incredibly important that authors who develop theories go to great lengths to make sure that they do not accidentally submit something that's pathological -- it's comparatively easy to check for logical consistency when one is assembling a theory, it's far harder for an outsider to identify pathologicity once it's been deeply embedded in a large and complex system. 
> 
> Einstein didn't do this. He didn't say: 
> "Oh dear -- special relativity models inertia in the //absence// of gravitation and curvature, and according to the principles I'm using for my general theory, inertial mass without curvature and gravitation is //impossible//. Therefore I had better not graft SR physics directly into the larger structure, until I can be //really sure// that this doesn't set up any logical rifts running through the final composite structure". 
> 
> Instead, he kept juggling about different auxiliary principles and assumptions and declaring them to be correct, and then changing his mind, again and again, until he found a collection that //seemed// to work. And then, because he was facing a potential priority dispute, he was forced to commit to whatever he had at the time, and publish it as final, and promote it as necessarily correct. 
> 
> By 1950, he had changed his mind, and went on the record as saying that he no longer believed in the idea of a "two-stage" theory, where first we work out the non-gravitational behaviours, and //then// we start thinking about gravity. A general theory (said Einstein1950) shouldn't contain any components not demonstrably compatible with the general principle of relativity, and he no longer believed that it was right to even //ask// what physics looked like without gravitation. But by then, the 1916 theory was embedded in the community, and they don't want to give it up, especially since there wasn't yet a replacement. 
> 
> And then he died in 1955, and here we still are. 
> 
> Eric Baird 
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric-Baird/research
beda:
II mostly agree with you on the incompatibly of SR/GR
Even more, it is impossible to construct a math or a geometric model 
that apply  to all laws of physics.
There are not "all laws of physics" that apply to all objects, nor is there
a single law of physics that applies to all objects.
Any object is different from others and has to be analyzed independently,
any different object requires its own laws and have to be analyzed in all 
environmental conditions the object may happen to be involved, for an object has its 
peculiar characteristics and mostly have a a non uniform behavior.
So a general geometrical model is incompatible with the real world.
Math e geometry  are separated realm from  the nature, math and geometry can be usefully used but they cannot design a map of the real.
This has been correctly described by Borges in literature
https://genius.com/Jorge-luis-borges-on-exactitude-in-science-annotated
The only possible mapping of the reality is the reality itself.
At point where science has arrived the only possible way of improvement is 
the close analysis of any phenomena case by case, no  model shortcut 
is applicable in general, math and geometry and any other abstract tool have to remain in their specific limited use.
In this view the best place where to sit our thinking is the classic neutral
3D plus absolute time, its neutrality warranty that all what is real or even what is thinkable can stay safe and unchanged, where finally we will be free from the incredible confusion 
generated by an absurd  application of geometric models to physics, where they don't belong.
best regards, I have appreciate the content of your post
beda pietanza

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597514

beda pietanza wrote:

> II mostly agree with you on the incompatibly of SR/GR Even more, it is
> impossible to construct a math or a geometric model that apply  to all
> laws of physics.

so true indeed. The GR is a second order, SR a first order. I never saw 
the reduction of GR to SR. They say it exists. Take the GR equation and 
reduce it to gamma etc of SR. They can't. What they do is the opposite. 
They calculated the SR and the GR part separately, adding them together to 
get the result. This is it. 

then Einstine, married his cousin, explains not much brain. Let's say you 
do it once, by mistake, but you won't take the bitch as in wive and 
husband. Disgraceful.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597527

On 12/14/2022 11:53 AM, Fabio Brambilla wrote:

[...]


> then Einstine, married his cousin, explains not much brain. Let's say you
> do it once, by mistake, but you won't take the bitch as in wive and
> husband. Disgraceful.

This really isn't the place to discuss your family secrets.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597694

Am 04.12.2022 um 20:16 schrieb erkd...@gmail.com:
> All from 1st-3rd December 2022:
>
> SR vs. relative acceleration:
> "Relative acceleration vs. special relativity"
> http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23399.93602

Quote
"Unfortunately, the physical criteria  for special relativity (which 
models inertia in the absence of gravitation),  and for the PoE (which 
says that we cannot have inertia without gravitation), are mutually 
exclusive."

Inertia is the behaviour or material objects to maintain course and 
speed, if not affected by a force.

Why and how does this require gravitation?

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597862

Il giorno sabato 17 dicembre 2022 alle 08:07:23 UTC+1 Thomas Heger ha scritto:
> Am 04.12.2022 um 20:16 schrieb erkd...@gmail.com: 
> > All from 1st-3rd December 2022: 
> > 
> > SR vs. relative acceleration: 
> > "Relative acceleration vs. special relativity" 
> > http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23399.93602 
> 
> Quote 
> "Unfortunately, the physical criteria for special relativity (which 
> models inertia in the absence of gravitation), and for the PoE (which 
> says that we cannot have inertia without gravitation), are mutually 
> exclusive." 
> 
> Inertia is the behaviour or material objects to maintain course and 
> speed, if not affected by a force. 
> 
> Why and how does this require gravitation? 
> 
> TH
beda:
inertia is the local effects of the gravitation of the total masses of the universe
gravity is the local effect of a near masses
both are gravitational effects:
local inertia is an isotropic gravity potential (away from near masses)
local gravity (always plus inertia) is unisotropic gravity potential(in presence of near masses)
regards
beda

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597876

On 12/19/2022 7:54 AM, beda pietanza wrote:
> Il giorno sabato 17 dicembre 2022 alle 08:07:23 UTC+1 Thomas Heger ha scritto:
>> Am 04.12.2022 um 20:16 schrieb erkd...@gmail.com:
>>> All from 1st-3rd December 2022:
>>>
>>> SR vs. relative acceleration:
>>> "Relative acceleration vs. special relativity"
>>> http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23399.93602
>>
>> Quote
>> "Unfortunately, the physical criteria for special relativity (which
>> models inertia in the absence of gravitation), and for the PoE (which
>> says that we cannot have inertia without gravitation), are mutually
>> exclusive."
>>
>> Inertia is the behaviour or material objects to maintain course and
>> speed, if not affected by a force.
>>
>> Why and how does this require gravitation?
>>
>> TH
> beda:
> inertia is the local effects of the gravitation of the total masses of the universe

Wow!!!!! Completely new definition unheard elsewhere.

> gravity is the local effect of a near masses

Considering that gravity has no distance boundary...

I think it best to excise the remainder of your posting.  In fact I 
think it best to excise all of your future postings before they
occupy space on my computer and/or waste my time. Get better soon.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597885

whodat wrote:

> On 12/19/2022 7:54 AM, beda pietanza wrote:
>> Il giorno sabato 17 dicembre 2022 alle 08:07:23 UTC+1 Thomas Heger ha
>>> Why and how does this require gravitation? TH
>>
>> beda: inertia is the local effects of the gravitation of the total
>> masses of the universe
> 
> W̶̳̳̳o̶̳̳̳w̶̳̳̳!!!!! C̶̳̳̳o̶̳̳̳m̶̳̳̳p̶̳̳̳l̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳t̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳l̶̳̳̳y̶̳̳̳ n̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳w̶̳̳̳ d̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳f̶̳̳̳i̶̳̳̳n̶̳̳̳i̶̳̳̳t̶̳̳̳i̶̳̳̳o̶̳̳̳n̶̳̳̳ u̶̳̳̳n̶̳̳̳h̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳a̶̳̳̳r̶̳̳̳d̶̳̳̳ e̶̳̳̳l̶̳̳̳s̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳w̶̳̳̳h̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳r̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳.

piss off. You are inconsistent. Unskilled and uneducated. A retard.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597887

On 12/19/2022 4:05 PM, Vitaliy Bazzoli wrote:
> whodat wrote:
> 
>> On 12/19/2022 7:54 AM, beda pietanza wrote:
>>> Il giorno sabato 17 dicembre 2022 alle 08:07:23 UTC+1 Thomas Heger ha
>>>> Why and how does this require gravitation? TH
>>>
>>> beda: inertia is the local effects of the gravitation of the total
>>> masses of the universe
>>
>> W̶̳̳̳o̶̳̳̳w̶̳̳̳!!!!! C̶̳̳̳o̶̳̳̳m̶̳̳̳p̶̳̳̳l̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳t̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳l̶̳̳̳y̶̳̳̳ n̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳w̶̳̳̳ d̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳f̶̳̳̳i̶̳̳̳n̶̳̳̳i̶̳̳̳t̶̳̳̳i̶̳̳̳o̶̳̳̳n̶̳̳̳ u̶̳̳̳n̶̳̳̳h̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳a̶̳̳̳r̶̳̳̳d̶̳̳̳ e̶̳̳̳l̶̳̳̳s̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳w̶̳̳̳h̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳r̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳.
> 
> piss off. You are inconsistent. Unskilled and uneducated. A retard.

How would you know as a stupid shit eating gay? You've demonstrated your
qualifications, after all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597888

whodat wrote:

> On 12/19/2022 4:05 PM, Vitaliy Bazzoli wrote:
>> whodat wrote:
>> 
>>> On 12/19/2022 7:54 AM, beda pietanza wrote:
>>>> Il giorno sabato 17 dicembre 2022 alle 08:07:23 UTC+1 Thomas Heger ha
>>>>> Why and how does this require gravitation? TH
>>>>
>>>> beda: inertia is the local effects of the gravitation of the total
>>>> masses of the universe
>>>
>>> W̶̳̳̳o̶̳̳̳w̶̳̳̳!!!!! C̶̳̳̳o̶̳̳̳m̶̳̳̳p̶̳̳̳l̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳t̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳l̶̳̳̳y̶̳̳̳ n̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳w̶̳̳̳ d̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳f̶̳̳̳i̶̳̳̳n̶̳̳̳i̶̳̳̳t̶̳̳̳i̶̳̳̳o̶̳̳̳n̶̳̳̳ u̶̳̳̳n̶̳̳̳h̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳a̶̳̳̳r̶̳̳̳d̶̳̳̳ e̶̳̳̳l̶̳̳̳s̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳w̶̳̳̳h̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳r̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳.
>> 
>> piss off. You are inconsistent. Unskilled and uneducated. A retard.
> 
> H̶̶̳o̶̶̳w̶̶̳ w̶̶̳o̶̶̳u̶̶̳l̶̶̳d̶̶̳ y̶̶̳o̶̶̳u̶̶̳ k̶̶̳n̶̶̳o̶̶̳w̶̶̳ a̶̶̳s̶̶̳ a̶̶̳ s̸̶̶̳̗͙̤͍̩̤͍͍̝̖̃̐̽̌̕t̵̶̶̨̳̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅu̸̶̶̳̲͓̫̙̘͉̾̈̎̇̃̽̍̃͝͝p̷̶̶̛̳̻̺̝͂̓̎́̕͝i̶̶̶̢̳͑̄̈́̾̾̅̕ḑ̶̶̶̳̙͇̰̗̦̠̽ s̸̶̶̳̗͙̤͍̩̤͍͍̝̖̃̐̽̌̕h̷̶̶̳͓̗̜͚̤̣͉̦̐̈͊͗͒̓͋̑͆̕i̶̶̶̢̳͑̄̈́̾̾̅̕t̵̶̶̨̳̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅ e̵̶̶̢̳͕͕̯̱̥͔̎̋̂̎͐̅͐̂͝à̶̶̶̳̜̲̈́͂̓̎͗̽t̵̶̶̨̳̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅi̶̶̶̢̳͑̄̈́̾̾̅̕n̸̶̶̢̳͙̯͓̝͔̣͈̓̄̆̀̓̈̾̕͜g̶̶̶̳͎̲̲͎͍͈̱͔̭̾ g̶̶̶̳͎̲̲͎͍͈̱͔̭̾à̶̶̶̳̜̲̈́͂̓̎͗̽y̷̶̶̢̛̳̪͈͒̆͝? Y̶̶̳o̶̶̳u̶̶̳'v̶̶̳e̶̶̳ d̶̶̳e̶̶̳m̶̶̳o̶̶̳n̶̶̳s̶̶̳t̶̶̳r̶̶̳a̶̶̳t̶̶̳e̶̶̳d̶̶̳ y̶̶̳o̶̶̳u̶̶̳r̶̶̳


You talk like a gay. I'm NOT gay. If alive and healthy, I fuck your
mother in she ass, in front of you, and pay nothing. You may take
pictures. I am a wonderful human being. I help the poor and give to
the needy. Go sula mia catza.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597890

On 12/19/2022 4:21 PM, Vitaliy Bazzoli wrote:
> whodat wrote:
> 
>> On 12/19/2022 4:05 PM, Vitaliy Bazzoli wrote:
>>> whodat wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/19/2022 7:54 AM, beda pietanza wrote:
>>>>> Il giorno sabato 17 dicembre 2022 alle 08:07:23 UTC+1 Thomas Heger ha
>>>>>> Why and how does this require gravitation? TH
>>>>>
>>>>> beda: inertia is the local effects of the gravitation of the total
>>>>> masses of the universe
>>>>
>>>> W̶̳̳̳o̶̳̳̳w̶̳̳̳!!!!! C̶̳̳̳o̶̳̳̳m̶̳̳̳p̶̳̳̳l̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳t̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳l̶̳̳̳y̶̳̳̳ n̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳w̶̳̳̳ d̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳f̶̳̳̳i̶̳̳̳n̶̳̳̳i̶̳̳̳t̶̳̳̳i̶̳̳̳o̶̳̳̳n̶̳̳̳ u̶̳̳̳n̶̳̳̳h̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳a̶̳̳̳r̶̳̳̳d̶̳̳̳ e̶̳̳̳l̶̳̳̳s̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳w̶̳̳̳h̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳r̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳.
>>>
>>> piss off. You are inconsistent. Unskilled and uneducated. A retard.
>>
>> H̶̶̳o̶̶̳w̶̶̳ w̶̶̳o̶̶̳u̶̶̳l̶̶̳d̶̶̳ y̶̶̳o̶̶̳u̶̶̳ k̶̶̳n̶̶̳o̶̶̳w̶̶̳ a̶̶̳s̶̶̳ a̶̶̳ s̸̶̶̳̗͙̤͍̩̤͍͍̝̖̃̐̽̌̕t̵̶̶̨̳̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅu̸̶̶̳̲͓̫̙̘͉̾̈̎̇̃̽̍̃͝͝p̷̶̶̛̳̻̺̝͂̓̎́̕͝i̶̶̶̢̳͑̄̈́̾̾̅̕ḑ̶̶̶̳̙͇̰̗̦̠̽ s̸̶̶̳̗͙̤͍̩̤͍͍̝̖̃̐̽̌̕h̷̶̶̳͓̗̜͚̤̣͉̦̐̈͊͗͒̓͋̑͆̕i̶̶̶̢̳͑̄̈́̾̾̅̕t̵̶̶̨̳̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅ e̵̶̶̢̳͕͕̯̱̥͔̎̋̂̎͐̅͐̂͝à̶̶̶̳̜̲̈́͂̓̎͗̽t̵̶̶̨̳̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅi̶̶̶̢̳͑̄̈́̾̾̅̕n̸̶̶̢̳͙̯͓̝͔̣͈̓̄̆̀̓̈̾̕͜g̶̶̶̳͎̲̲͎͍͈̱͔̭̾ g̶̶̶̳͎̲̲͎͍͈̱͔̭̾à̶̶̶̳̜̲̈́͂̓̎͗̽y̷̶̶̢̛̳̪͈͒̆͝? Y̶̶̳o̶̶̳u̶̶̳'v̶̶̳e̶̶̳ d̶̶̳e̶̶̳m̶̶̳o̶̶̳n̶̶̳s̶̶̳t̶̶̳r̶̶̳a̶̶̳t̶̶̳e̶̶̳d̶̶̳ y̶̶̳o̶̶̳u̶̶̳r̶̶̳
> 
> 
> You talk like a gay. I'm NOT gay. If alive and healthy, I fuck your
> mother in she ass, in front of you, and pay nothing. You may take
> pictures. I am a wonderful human being. I help the poor and give to
> the needy. Go sula mia catza.

Nothing you have written in these sci newsgroups is believable because
you are simply a crazy shit eating gay teenager (or a pre-teen.) You're
a waste of protoplasm. I'll soon stop engaging you because you've become
extremely BORING and there isn't anybody who takes anything you write
seriously. Toe nail fungus has greater general interest.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597891

whodat wrote:

>>>>>> beda: inertia is the local effects of the gravitation of the total
>>>>>> masses of the universe
>>>>>
>>>>> W̶̳̳̳o̶̳̳̳w̶̳̳̳!!!!! C̶̳̳̳o̶̳̳̳m̶̳̳̳p̶̳̳̳l̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳t̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳l̶̳̳̳y̶̳̳̳ n̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳w̶̳̳̳ d̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳f̶̳̳̳i̶̳̳̳n̶̳̳̳i̶̳̳̳t̶̳̳̳i̶̳̳̳o̶̳̳̳n̶̳̳̳ u̶̳̳̳n̶̳̳̳h̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳a̶̳̳̳r̶̳̳̳d̶̳̳̳ e̶̳̳̳l̶̳̳̳s̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳w̶̳̳̳h̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳r̶̳̳̳e̶̳̳̳.
>>>>
>>>> piss off. You are inconsistent. Unskilled and uneducated. A retard.
>>>
>>> H̶̶̳o̶̶̳w̶̶̳ w̶̶̳o̶̶̳u̶̶̳l̶̶̳d̶̶̳ y̶̶̳o̶̶̳u̶̶̳ k̶̶̳n̶̶̳o̶̶̳w̶̶̳ a̶̶̳s̶̶̳ a̶̶̳ s̸̶̶̳̗͙̤͍̩̤͍͍̝̖̃̐̽̌̕t̵̶̶̨̳̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅu̸̶̶̳̲͓̫̙̘͉̾̈̎̇̃̽̍̃͝͝p̷̶̶̛̳̻̺̝͂̓̎́̕͝i̶̶̶̢̳͑̄̈́̾̾̅̕ḑ̶̶̶̳̙͇̰̗̦̠̽ s̸̶̶̳̗͙̤͍̩̤͍͍̝̖̃̐̽̌̕h̷̶̶̳͓̗̜͚̤̣͉̦̐̈͊͗͒̓͋̑͆̕i̶̶̶̢̳͑̄̈́̾̾̅̕t̵̶̶̨̳̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅ e̵̶̶̢̳͕͕̯̱̥͔̎̋̂̎͐̅͐̂͝à̶̶̶̳̜̲̈́͂̓̎͗̽t̵̶̶̨̳̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅi̶̶̶̢̳͑̄̈́̾̾̅̕n̸̶̶̢̳͙̯͓̝͔̣͈̓̄̆̀̓̈̾̕͜g̶̶̶̳͎̲̲͎͍͈̱͔̭̾ g̶̶̶̳͎̲̲͎͍͈̱͔̭̾à̶̶̶̳̜̲̈́͂̓̎͗̽y̷̶̶̢̛̳̪͈͒̆͝? Y̶̶̳o̶̶̳u̶̶̳'v̶̶̳e̶̶̳ d̶̶̳e̶̶̳m̶̶̳o̶̶̳n̶̶̳s̶̶̳t̶̶̳r̶̶̳a̶̶̳t̶̶̳e̶̶̳d̶̶̳ y̶̶̳o̶̶̳u̶̶̳r̶̶̳
>> 
>> 
>> You talk like a gay. I'm NOT gay. If alive and healthy, I fuck your
>> mother in she ass, in front of you, and pay nothing. You may take
>> pictures. I am a wonderful human being. I help the poor and give to
>> the needy. Go sula mia catza.
> 
> N̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳o̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳t̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳h̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳i̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳n̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳g̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳ y̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳o̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳u̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳ h̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳a̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳v̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳e̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳ w̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳r̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳i̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳t̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳t̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳e̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳n̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳ i̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳n̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳ t̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳h̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳e̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳s̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳e̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳ s̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳c̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳i̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳ n̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳e̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳w̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳s̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳g̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳r̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳o̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳u̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳p̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳s̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳ i̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳s̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳ b̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳e̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳l̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳i̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳e̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳v̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳a̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳b̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳l̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳e̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳ b̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳e̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳c̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳a̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳u̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳s̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳e̶̶̶̳̳̳̳̳


I am teaching on university, PhD, Master and BSc level. You are an idiot.
Why would anybody waste his time on you, if not funny. You stupid sack
of rocks. Take yourself a proper education before opening your stupid 
mouth.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597894

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 4:00:52 PM UTC-8, Vitaliy Bazzoli wrote:

> I am teaching on university, PhD, Master and BSc level. 

Not a chance in hell...

https://i.imgur.com/cmvZjx0.jpeg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597897

On 12/19/2022 6:00 PM, Vitaliy Bazzoli wrote:

[snip]


> I am teaching on university, PhD, Master and BSc level. 

Just another lie like all the rest. Any university educated reader
instantly sees the problem with that statement.

> You are an idiot.

Of course you'd say that or something like that.

> Why would anybody waste his time on you, if not funny. 

Because you are insane. Rage like yours is almost always a
fringe benefit of mental illness.

> You stupid sack of rocks. 

Almost slipped there!

> Take yourself a proper education before opening your stupid
> mouth.

I am clearly better educated than you will ever be.

Your judgment is, at the very least, impaired. Fact is you are a crazy
shit eating gay teenager or pre-teen and probably an addict to boot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597937

On December 19, whodat wrote:
>> inertia is the local effects of the gravitation of the total masses of the universe
>
> Wow!!!!! Completely new definition unheard elsewhere.

Actually, it's Mach's idea.  Einstein endorsed it early, then later 
repudiated it.

I'm not familiar with his thinking, perhaps someone else could elucidate...

--
Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597941

On 12/20/2022 2:01 PM, RichD wrote:
> On December 19, whodat wrote:
>>> inertia is the local effects of the gravitation of the total masses of the universe
>>
>> Wow!!!!! Completely new definition unheard elsewhere.
> 
> Actually, it's Mach's idea.  Einstein endorsed it early, then later
> repudiated it.
> 
> I'm not familiar with his thinking, perhaps someone else could elucidate...


Your confusion, as was RichD's, is well founded.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597969

Il giorno martedì 20 dicembre 2022 alle 21:01:02 UTC+1 RichD ha scritto:
> On December 19, whodat wrote: 
> >> inertia is the local effects of the gravitation of the total masses of the universe 
> > 
> > Wow!!!!! Completely new definition unheard elsewhere.
> Actually, it's Mach's idea. Einstein endorsed it early, then later 
> repudiated it. 
> 
> I'm not familiar with his thinking, perhaps someone else could elucidate... 
beda:
that the presence and the distribution of all masses of the universe affects any object is intuitively true
but we must remember that an object is different from another, therefore the relation of a single object with the totality of the universal masses (near and far) is a cases by case different depending on each single object involved.
the general formulation of the Mach principle:
"Local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe." must be rewrite as:
"The local physical laws applicable to an object are the combined result of the effects of the large-scale structure of the universe and the different material of the object involved".

best regards
beda pietanza


> 
> -- 
> Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597901

Am 19.12.2022 um 14:54 schrieb beda pietanza:
> Il giorno sabato 17 dicembre 2022 alle 08:07:23 UTC+1 Thomas Heger ha scritto:
>> Am 04.12.2022 um 20:16 schrieb erkd...@gmail.com:
>>> All from 1st-3rd December 2022:
>>>
>>> SR vs. relative acceleration:
>>> "Relative acceleration vs. special relativity"
>>> http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23399.93602
>>
>> Quote
>> "Unfortunately, the physical criteria for special relativity (which
>> models inertia in the absence of gravitation), and for the PoE (which
>> says that we cannot have inertia without gravitation), are mutually
>> exclusive."
>>
>> Inertia is the behaviour or material objects to maintain course and
>> speed, if not affected by a force.
>>
>> Why and how does this require gravitation?
>>
>> TH
> beda:
> inertia is the local effects of the gravitation of the total masses of the universe

???

What do you mean by that?

Inertia is caused by the mass of an object. IOW: inertia is a measure 
for mass (or vice versa).

Why and how material objects aquirre mass is among the unsolved problems 
in physics (if you wouldn't regard the so called 'Higg's mechanism' as a 
'solution').

I personally have developed a different solution to the same problem, 
which is not based on any kind of particles.

I call particles 'timelike stable structures' (in kind of universal 
field, which I identify with spacetime of GR).

My modell is therefore called 'structured spacetime' and can be found here:


https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing 


> gravity is the local effect of a near masses

No! You should distinguish measures like 'mass' from material objects 
like -say- atoms.

It is very common but still wrong to confuse these two terms.

So: it is not mass what causes gravity, but material objects with a 
certain mass (like e.g. planet Earth).

'Mass' is the name of a physical quantity and not a thing.

..

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web